National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pp. v + 286
$44.95 ISBN 0-309-08435-0
Reviewed by Terrell L. Strayhorn
Virginia Tech
September 27, 2004
Student achievement has been widely researched over the past couple of decades. Several seminal works have contributed to our understanding of student achievement and what motivates students to learn (Atkinson, 1964; Maslow, 1962; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). These authors offered compelling arguments about the nature of student motivation and how motivation is learned. Today, educators continue to be intensely interested in student motivation to learn.
Motivation to learn or achievement motivation has been the subject of numerous research studies that focused on its impact on learning and academic performance (Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Lumsden, 1994). For example, Dweck and Elliott (1983) examined psychological factors that influence learning like locus of control and attention to task. With few exceptions, researchers have often found a strong positive correlation between motivation to learn and student achievement.
Several theories have been put forth about student motivation to learn and its relationship with achievement. One such theory is the need achievement theory described by Atkinson and Feather (1966). They suggest that a central conflict facing children is the drive to succeed and the urge to avoid failure. To work out this conflict, children evaluate whether or not they expect to succeed in a task up against the premium placed on either success or failure. In this way, the theory of motivation is an expectancy by value (E x V) model.
Other theories have been set forth as plausible explanations of this phenomenon. Test anxiety theory is based on a stimulus-response (S-R) model that suggests cognition influences academic behaviors (Skinner & Fester, 1957). In this way, children strive for approval from parents and significant others and fear failure. Such anxiety can have either positive or negative effects on academic performance.
Finally, another explanation of motivation was advanced by Brophy (1987). Accordingly, motivation to learn is a competence acquired through experience but immediately encouraged through modeling, statement of expectations, and instruction by significant others. To this end, what takes place in the classroom and school setting is critical to student success. Student motivation can be stimulated by teachers’ instruction and engaging school curriculum, for example.
The notion that what takes place in the classroom is critical to student motivation has been supported by a number of studies (Ames, 1992; Jacob, 1999; Slavin, 1983). Yet another area that has received attention in the research literature is the effect of schools (i.e. environments, curriculum, and organization) on student learning and performance (Lashway, 1999; Weinstein, 1998). However, most of these studies focus on how to improve student engagement in elementary and middle school not high school. Engaging Schools contributes to the knowledge base on student motivation to learn, academic engagement, and achievement relative to urban high schools.
The blue and yellow cover of this book by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine will certainly grab the reader’s attention. Published by the National Academies Press, this book is a report by the Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn and part of the Adolescent Education and Urban Reform initiative. The study was supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Keeping with the custom of the National Research Council, this volume was prepared by a committee of volunteer scholars and other experts. The committee was chaired by Deborah Stipek, Dean of the School of Education at Stanford University and former Director of the Corinne Seeds University Elementary School. Her research interests include the effects of instruction on achievement motivation, school reform, and policies affecting children and education. She has authored several books related to these topics (Bohart & Stipek, 2001; Stipek, 1997; Stipek & Seal, 2001). It seems appropriate that someone with such interests and experiences would chair the study’s committee.
The primary concern of this research is to examine the effects of curriculum, instruction, and the organization of schools upon the engagement of students in high school and their involvement in the broader community. In attempting to investigate factors which may account for differences in academic engagement, this study raises several interrelated questions: What motivates students to learn? How important is academic engagement to student learning and success? And, how can schools, families, and communities promote involvement of urban youth in the academic program? While all high schools in need of reform or change can benefit from the suggestions made in the report, this research concentrates on urban high schools that are critically in need of improvement.
The report is laid out over nine sections. The first section discusses the problem of engagement in urban high schools and underscores the importance of this volume. To understand the problem, one must understand the nature of engagement and this is presented in chapter two. The third section discusses the importance of teaching and its effect on learning. The authors make clear that engaging techniques cannot be limited to particular instructional activities. Rather, the implementation of pedagogical techniques that foster engagement requires an integrated approach.
The next two chapters emphasize the influence that school climate, organization, and size have on student engagement and motivation to learn. The relationship between school, family, and community is also addressed. The rest of the book is spent identifying effective practices and highlighting environments that enhance student learning and engagement. An impressive and useful set of references are listed at the back of the book. It should prove useful to anyone interested in student motivation and engagement.
The authors advanced a number of hypotheses concerning the nature and condition of engagement. First, engagement is both behavioral and emotional—that is, it involves observable behaviors and cognitive behaviors. Second, engagement is influenced by intrinsic reasons and/or extrinsic goals or incentives. Finally, deep student engagement motivates students to learn and results in active learning.
The committee highlights several pedagogical techniques that have proven useful for promoting deep student engagement. These practices also purport to increase student engagement and motivation to learn. For example, the authors discuss the effectiveness of peer collaboration, rigorous and challenging instruction, culturally responsive curricula, and the use of multiple resources to gain mastery of subject matter. These findings support earlier studies that show these methods are effective (Carbo, 1997; Glaser, 1994; Jacob, 1999; Slavin, 1983).
Cooperative learning, or peer collaboration, has its place in the function of motivation and achievement. It is largely accepted that working in cooperative learning groups can positively impact student engagement. However, whether or not such environments promote achievement is unclear (Onwuegbuzie, 2001). There is a diversity of opinions on this matter, but most evidence suggests that students who prefer to work collaboratively perform well in cooperative settings (Hancock, 2004; Jacob, 1999; Slavin, 1983). The committee’s report suggests that peer collaboration is a way of teaching in an engaging way.
Another technique proven to promote engagement in learning is to provide challenging instruction. Intuitively, it is clear that students become disengaged from school when work seems unchallenging and boring. Engagement and achievement are most likely to be promoted when instruction is rigorous and provided in a context that supports students’ self-confidence and belief in their ability to achieve (Eccles et al., 1983). This principle of optimal dissonance (Perry, 1968) may be one of the most important advanced by the committee.
Related to the challenge and rigor of instruction, the committee recommends that teachers draw on students’ experiences and allow students to use multiple resources to gain mastery in learning. Making use of student experiences not only makes instruction relevant to learners, but it also moves them from being mere consumers of knowledge to being producers of it. This is the essence of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970)—to shift the balance of power in the classroom so that it is shared by all and reinforces a student’s sense of agency. This report emphasizes the influence that locus of control and social relationships can have on engagement and motivation to learn.
Not only does the committee recommend that teachers capitalize on students’ cultural knowledge, but that teachers teach in a way that allows all students to learn. Gardner’s (1993) theory suggests that student learn through different modalities or “intelligences.” To be highly effective, instruction must include activities that reflect various intelligences—from reading and writing to drawing and acting.
All of these “best practices” can prove useful to educators interested in creating learning environments opulent with opportunity for engagement. However, they should be considered with a degree of caution recognizing that there are subtle caveats and risks in them all. For example, consider the habit of using peer collaboration to promote engagement in learning. This can be a successful strategy when used lightly and deliberately, however, it may undermine engagement to the extent that it threatens students’ self-confidence or trust in peers.
Likewise, challenging and rigorous instruction may lead to disengagement and students feeling overwhelmed if it is not matched with an appropriate balance of support. To work, rigorous instruction must take place in a supportive context where learning goals are clear and achievable. This is an important stipulation to remember when considering the committee’s recommendations.
The committee makes a number of recommendations to those who are interested in deliberately designing schools that promote engagement and improve achievement. This list is a summary of the recommendations:
- High school courses and pedagogical methods must be redesigned to engage students cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally. As such, instruction would draw on endogenous contexts and meanings and make use of students’ experiences.
- Following from the previous recommendation, teachers should use instructional methods that are reasonably challenging and appropriate for all students. To gauge the effectiveness of curriculum, teaching, and progress in learning, teachers should regularly and consistently monitor student engagement using classroom-based assessments.
- If teachers are going to be successful at engaging students in the learning process, then, they are going to need a wide variety of instructional methods, coupled with deep content knowledge, to depend upon. Thus, pre-service teacher preparation programs should provide student teachers with a great deal of content knowledge and “an understanding of student-centered pedagogy that is focused on understanding and…strategies for involving students in active learning” (p.5). Likewise, schools and districts should provide practicing teachers with opportunities to learn and further develop their skills and competencies.
- Schools should provide necessary challenge and support to help all high school students meet high standards and achieve academically.
- Standards-based tests must be aligned with the efforts of such a reform. If teachers are to teach so as to engage students in the academic program, then accountability tests must be used to measure broader conceptualizations of learning like critical thinking and writing.
- Large, comprehensive urban high schools should be restructured into smaller learning communities that promote “a web of social relationships that support learning” among teachers, students, administrators, and the broader community.
- Removing the practice of tracking, schools should consist of heterogeneous classrooms of students who differ widely in their skill levels.
- Since social and psychological problems can impede a student’s engagement in learning and disrupt a positive living, learning environment, all members of the school staff, including teachers, should take part in guidance and counseling responsibilities.
- To achieve high levels of engagement and academic achievement for all students, schools, homes, religious and community organizations should work collaboratively to make school learning and “real-world” experiences seamless.
- Urban schools face many challenges that they are unable to deal with. Therefore, schools must make greater effort to partner with social and health organizations to meet the needs of their students. In addition, policymakers should revise policies to make easy students’ access to such services.
Perhaps one of the most important points of this book is that what takes places in the classroom is one of the most—if not the most—powerful factors in student engagement and learning. What is taught and how it is taught exert tremendous influence on students’ motivation to learn. With that in mind, teachers are heavily weighted variables in the equation of motivation. Small schools and class sizes are important but not enough alone. High expectations may “raise the bar” and promote a culture of achievement or “academic press” (Shouse, 1996) but only when matched with necessary levels of support.
In sum, effective practices do more than stimulate cognition and interest. They address psychological variables related to motivation such as competence, control, beliefs about education, and sense of belonging. Engaging schools and teachers do more than convey high expectations—they promote students’ confidence in their ability to learn by providing challenging instruction and support for meeting such high standards. Educators that are successful seek to provide students with choices and to make the curriculum relevant to their experiences, cultures, and personal goals.
This book does a good job of synthesizing the literature on student engagement and motivation to learn. It presents a balanced educational approach to motivating students to learn and reforming school environments to promote student learning. However, by design, the report focuses only on what engaging schools look like and the factors that inhibit engagement. It does not tackle the burning issue of “how-to” reform education in this way.
The report is cogently written and provides a useful discussion of the factors associated with engagement, motivation to learn, and achievement. Perhaps the weakest discussion centers on the relationship between schools and communities. Again, the chapter underscores the importance of school-community partnerships and improved coordination among the various settings but offers little insight into “how-to” activate such partnerships.
Research up to this point has often concluded that comprehensive school reform is critically important to the betterment of education in America. However, few reform proposals give enough attention to the culture of individual schools. This “self-inflicted blindness” (Goodlad, 1997, p. 99) makes failure to change inevitable. What is needed at this time is research that focuses on how to reform education and the ability of the education system to absorb such an overhaul of change. We need research that draws bright lines of connection between theory, research, praxis and implementation. Engaging Schools is a useful volume for those interested in student motivation to learn and school reform as it paints a picture of where we need to go. And, perhaps that serves as a road map of how to get there.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley.
Bohart, A. C., & Stipek, D. J. (2001). Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and society. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership(October), 40-48.
Carbo, M. (1997). Reading styles times twenty. Educational Leadership, 54, 38-42.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (Vol. IV). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Eccles, J., Adler, T., Futterman, R., Goff, S., Kaczala, C., Meece, J., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behavior. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, R. (1994). Criterion-referenced tests: Part I, origins. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(4), 9-12.
Goodlad, J. I. (1997). In praise of education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hancock, D. (2004). Cooperative learning and peer orientation effects on motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 159-166.
Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context: An educational innovation in everyday classrooms. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lashway, L. (1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement (No. EDO-EA-99-6). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student motivation to learn (No. EDO-EA-94-7). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ:: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Relationship between peer orientation and achievement in cooperative learning-based research methodology courses. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 164-170.
Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Shouse, R. D. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 47-68.
Skinner, B. F., & Fester, C. B. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Stipek, D. J. (1997). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Stipek, D. J., & Seal, K. (2001). Motivated minds: Raising children to love learning. New York: Owl Books.
Weinstein, R. (1998). Promoting positive expectations in schooling. In N. Lambert & B. McCombs (Eds.), Howstudents learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 81-111). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
About the Reviewer
Terrell L. Strayhorn is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. His major research interests pertain to governance and policy in higher education, education policy analysis, and issues related to pedagogy and curriculum . His minor area of study focuses on race and social policy. He holds a master’s degree in Educational Policy from the University of Virginia. Email: terrells@vt.edu
~
ER home |
Reseņas Educativas |
Resenhas Educativas
~
~
overview | reviews | editors |
volunteer |
submit | guidelines | announcements
~